Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr

140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Section 242(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified as 8 U. S. C. §1252(a), provides for judicial review of a final Government order directing the removal of an alien from this country. Guerrero-Lasprilla (P) and Ruben Ovalles, are aliens who lived in the United States and each committed a drug crime. An Immigration Judge ordered P removed. The BIA ordered Ovalles removed, reversing a decision by an Immigration Judge. Both removal orders became administratively final, and both petitioners left the country. Each petitioner’s window for filing a timely motion to reopen his removal proceedings closed. The INA permits a person one motion to reopen, “a form of procedural relief that asks the Board to change its decision in light of newly discovered evidence or a change in circumstances.” The motion must usually be filed “within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” P and Ovalles asked the Board to reopen their removal proceedings. Both argued that the time limit should be equitably tolled. Both had become eligible for discretionary relief due to various judicial and Board decisions years after their removal, and rested their claim for equitable tolling on Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch. P filed his motion to reopen a month after Lugo-Resendez was decided. Ovalles filed his motion to reopen eight months after the decision. The Board denied both as they had failed to demonstrate the requisite due diligence. Both appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The court denied the requests concluding in both cases that “whether an alien acted diligently in attempting to reopen removal proceedings for purposes of equitable tolling is a factual question” and it “lacked jurisdiction” to review those “factual” claims. Both parties appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.